IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

211 Date of decision: August 25, 2025 GURPREET SINGH .....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Mr. G.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate (through VC)

Mr. P.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG, Punjab with ASI Manmohan Singh.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.(ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.82 dated 16.06.2023 under Sections 302, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who is the brother-in-law (devar) of the deceased, has been falsely implicated in the present case; the only allegation against the petitioner is that a day prior to the deceased Jaswinder Kaur having been found dead in her matrimonial home, she telephonically told her father i.e. the complainant Sucha Singh that her husband, co-accused Amandeep Singh and the petitioner had been indulging in taunts regarding her character. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the falsity of the case of the prosecution stands substantiated from the fact that while stepping into the witness box, the father, who spelt out the motive to commit the crime, had not supported the case of the prosecution, as a result of which, he was declared hostile. It has also been submitted that PW Swaran Singh, another immediate family member of the deceased also did not support the case of the prosecution during trial, as a result of which, he too was declared hostile. Learned counsel has submitted that other than this piece of evidence, there was no other incriminating evidence to link the petitioner with the murder of Jaswinder Kaur. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 17.06.2023; as many as 12 prosecution witnesses including the complainant stand examined, however, 12 witnesses still remain to be examined, and therefore, the possibility of the trial concluding in the near future does not arise.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, on instructions, has not disputed the custody period of the petitioner nor has he, on instructions, disputed that two of the material witnesses including the father of the deceased, who is also the author of the FIR, had been declared hostile during trial. He, however, submits that during investigation and at the time of the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, some hair was lifted from the clenched fist of the deceased, which matched with co-accused Amandeep Singh. On being pointedly asked as to whether there was any forensic evidence of a similar kind linking the present petitioner with the crime in question, he, on instructions, has replied in the negative. However, learned State counsel has reiterated the allegations levelled in the FIR (Annexure P-1), which stands reproduced hereinunder:-

“At present it reported that a is statement from Sucha Singh son of Hari Singh Resident of House Number 357 Ward Number 11 near Fauji di Chakki Pathana Wala Mohalla Sanaur Tehsil and District Patiala written by Insp. Harry Boparai Station House Officer Police Station Kotwali Nabha for registration of case under section 302, 34 of IPC against Amandeep Singh and Gurpreet Singh sons Baldev Singh resident of Gobind Nagar near 40 number Fatak, Buhi Road Nabha was received by hand through SC Randhir Singh 2246/Patiala in Police Station. The contents of the same son is of as under. Statement of Sucha Singh Hari Singh resident of House Number 357, Ward Number 11, Near Fauji Di Chaki, Pathana Wala Mohalla, Sanaur, Tehsil and District Patiala aged around 53 years, Mobile Number 96465- resident of above 74165, Stated that I mentioned address and I am am doing work of plying Auto. I have two daugh